INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Tipo de documento: | preprint |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | SciELO Preprints |
Texto Completo: | https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2885 |
Resumo: | It focuses on the creation of the scientific journal and the 16th century when knowledge was discussed in the public arena (open review) and by decision of the inquisitors (evaluators) the authors were imprisoned until they changed (or not) their minds. The periodical was first handed over to book publishers who accepted the intent as it approached its socialization, the expansion in economically profitable quantity until it was sponsored by commercial and university publishers. In this journey, the idea of blind review arises and consolidates. Although open science has from the 20th and 21st centuries onwards technologies can be able to help science solve problems: making communication between individuals faster; knowledge available for scientific records; transformations of scientific records stored and consulted, and open access, the open review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific communication, despite editors, authors and reviewers defending it. Evaluation in an open system suits science in this condition, although there is no unanimity in scientific communication about the possibility of widespread use of open peer review (OPR). This article encourages and supports arguments, not necessarily providing all the answers, reaching the objective in favor of open evaluation, in modern times. |
id |
SCI-1_2c0665c38a49a24606b669dfad731be4 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ops.preprints.scielo.org:preprint/2885 |
network_acronym_str |
SCI-1 |
network_name_str |
SciELO Preprints |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATIONINCURSÕES SOBRE AVALIAÇÃO ABERTAOpen peer reviewOpen reviewScientific communicationOpen scienceAvaliação abertaOpen peer reviewOpen reviewComunicação científicaCiência abertaIt focuses on the creation of the scientific journal and the 16th century when knowledge was discussed in the public arena (open review) and by decision of the inquisitors (evaluators) the authors were imprisoned until they changed (or not) their minds. The periodical was first handed over to book publishers who accepted the intent as it approached its socialization, the expansion in economically profitable quantity until it was sponsored by commercial and university publishers. In this journey, the idea of blind review arises and consolidates. Although open science has from the 20th and 21st centuries onwards technologies can be able to help science solve problems: making communication between individuals faster; knowledge available for scientific records; transformations of scientific records stored and consulted, and open access, the open review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific communication, despite editors, authors and reviewers defending it. Evaluation in an open system suits science in this condition, although there is no unanimity in scientific communication about the possibility of widespread use of open peer review (OPR). This article encourages and supports arguments, not necessarily providing all the answers, reaching the objective in favor of open evaluation, in modern times.Focaliza a criação do periódico científico e o início do século XVI época em que o conhecimento era discutido em praça pública ( revisão aberta ) e por decisão dos inquisidores (avaliadores) os autores eram aprisionados até mudar (ou não) de ideia. O periódico foi primeiro entregue aos editores de livros que aceitaram o intento avizinhando sua socialização, a ampliação em quantidade economicamente rentável até ser patrocinado por editoras comerciais e universitárias. Nessa travessia a ideia de blind review surge e se consolida. Embora a ciência aberta conte a partir dos séculos XX e XXI com tecnologias aptas a ajudar a ciência a problemas de resolução: tornando a comunicação mais rápida entre os nossos proprietários;conhecimento disponível para os registros científicos; transformações dos registros científicos armazenados e consultados, e acesso aberto, uma revisão aberta que ofertaia mais qualificação, ainda não conquistou o espaço na comunicação científica a despeito de editores, autores e avaliadores a defenderem. A avaliação em sistema aberto convém à ciência nessa condição, embora não haja unanimidade na comunicação científica da possibilidade de uso generalizado de revisão por pares aberta (OPR). Este artigo, fomenta e respalda argumentações, não necessariamente obrigada a todas as respostas, mas, atingindo o objetivo em favor da avaliação aberta, nos tempos hodiernos.SciELO PreprintsSciELO PreprintsSciELO Preprints2021-09-08info:eu-repo/semantics/preprintinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/288510.1590/SciELOPreprints.2885porhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/article/view/2885/5114Copyright (c) 2021 Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garciahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGarcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiroreponame:SciELO Preprintsinstname:SciELOinstacron:SCI2021-08-31T21:57:50Zoai:ops.preprints.scielo.org:preprint/2885Servidor de preprintshttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scieloONGhttps://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/oaiscielo.submission@scielo.orgopendoar:2021-08-31T21:57:50SciELO Preprints - SciELOfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION INCURSÕES SOBRE AVALIAÇÃO ABERTA |
title |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION |
spellingShingle |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro Open peer review Open review Scientific communication Open science Avaliação aberta Open peer review Open review Comunicação científica Ciência aberta |
title_short |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION |
title_full |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION |
title_fullStr |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION |
title_full_unstemmed |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION |
title_sort |
INCURSIONS ABOUT OPEN EVALUATION |
author |
Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro |
author_facet |
Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Garcia, Joana Coeli Ribeiro |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Open peer review Open review Scientific communication Open science Avaliação aberta Open peer review Open review Comunicação científica Ciência aberta |
topic |
Open peer review Open review Scientific communication Open science Avaliação aberta Open peer review Open review Comunicação científica Ciência aberta |
description |
It focuses on the creation of the scientific journal and the 16th century when knowledge was discussed in the public arena (open review) and by decision of the inquisitors (evaluators) the authors were imprisoned until they changed (or not) their minds. The periodical was first handed over to book publishers who accepted the intent as it approached its socialization, the expansion in economically profitable quantity until it was sponsored by commercial and university publishers. In this journey, the idea of blind review arises and consolidates. Although open science has from the 20th and 21st centuries onwards technologies can be able to help science solve problems: making communication between individuals faster; knowledge available for scientific records; transformations of scientific records stored and consulted, and open access, the open review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific review that would offer more qualification, has not yet conquered space in scientific communication, despite editors, authors and reviewers defending it. Evaluation in an open system suits science in this condition, although there is no unanimity in scientific communication about the possibility of widespread use of open peer review (OPR). This article encourages and supports arguments, not necessarily providing all the answers, reaching the objective in favor of open evaluation, in modern times. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-09-08 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/preprint info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
preprint |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2885 10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2885 |
url |
https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/preprint/view/2885 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/SciELOPreprints.2885 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/article/view/2885/5114 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Joana Coeli Ribeiro Garcia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SciELO Preprints SciELO Preprints SciELO Preprints |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SciELO Preprints SciELO Preprints SciELO Preprints |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:SciELO Preprints instname:SciELO instacron:SCI |
instname_str |
SciELO |
instacron_str |
SCI |
institution |
SCI |
reponame_str |
SciELO Preprints |
collection |
SciELO Preprints |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
SciELO Preprints - SciELO |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
scielo.submission@scielo.org |
_version_ |
1797047824809984000 |